Chummer45:neversubmit: International Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime

As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation. Many of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation or, in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.

Yeah and here's the problem. The government should be held accountable and so should any private organization. But often times, big business colludes with the government and they watch each others' backs. Methinks that perhaps getting money out of politics might make our government more responsive to these concerns that most average Americans have.

With talk like that, you are going to end up on the side of the experiment that doesn't get the antidote.

udhq:Lucky LaRue: I like how the herbal teabaggers are completely ignoring the fact that the EPA didn't provide full disclosure and focusing on a Breitbart beat-down. That's why I like you guys - your truly the intellectual elite.

Ha!

/but oops, better not laugh too loud at the guys who comes in hurling insults then cries to the mods when people are not being "civil" to him.....

He keeps pushing both sides are bad while constantly only going after anything remotely not GOP.

A cliched Fark Independent.

I hold that both the far left and far right are bad. That is correct. Whether you are a teabagger or a herbal tebagger, you are equally bad. A teabagger will look at my comments and call me a liberal. And, as you've illustrated, herbal teabaggers assume that my positions must be conservative because they don't mesh with the liberal hate and vitriol they've been taught.

I understand that a narrow, insipid view of how the world works may be all that you can comprehend, so I don't take it as a personal insult that my more complex political position irritates you to the point of being rude and aggressive.

Do you know why nobody takes Breitbart seriously? It's because of their long, sordid record of making up "news," omitting important details, and generally being completely unreliable shills for the far-right. Anyone who reads a Breitbart article and doesn't attempt to find the rest of the story, is willfully deceiving himself.

neversubmit:timujin: Seriously? Someone actually thought, "Hey, let's expose kids with asthma to diesel fumes and see what happens!" was a good idea?

Nineteen mentally retarded boys who thought they were participating in a science club in the 1940's and 1950's were actually fed radioactive milk by scientists who wanted to learn about the digestive system, The Boston Sunday Globe reported.

This radioactive milk is pretty much the same stuff as the barium they give you today before an xray of your digestive system. Article said it was as much radiation as 50 x-rays. 50 x-rays really aren't that much, the reason the person at the clinic hides behind the wall is because they are exposed to potentially hundreds a day.

XCON Study. Starting in 2004, the EPA exposed adults with metabolic syndrome (including the elderly) to high levels of toxic PM2.5.

OMEGACON Study. Starting in 2007, the EPA exposed older adults to high levels of diesel exhaust (which contains PM2.5 and other "toxic" substances) and then "treated" them with omega-3 fatty acids to see if whatever harm caused by PM2.5 was mitigated. In 2008, the diesel exhaust was replaced by plain PM2.5.

CAPTAIN Study. The EPA is now recruiting older adults (including the elderly up to 75 years) to "... find out if a component of ambient air pollution to which we are all exposed, particulate matter (PM), produced by car and coal-fired power plants, increases the risks of changes in the heart and whether genotype will lessen the risks caused by PM.

Something about those dates doesn't seem right. Why didn't Obama take his time machine and go further into the past to authorize these studies? There must be some deeply nefarious reason, but it would have been nice to have the results sooner.

yakmans_dad:OK. How bad are the cancer risks from diesel fumes? I mean ...should we stop selling diesel? Shut down the trucking industry until they switch to gasoline? Have I been a participant in a long term (+60 year) experiment that nobody told me of?

Dont worry the regulations on allowable PM emissions have dropped by a 60th in the past two decades and a 10th in the past decade. They are getting a lot better.

jcooli09:Breightbart and junk science really suck, and so do you if you pay attention to them without checking out what they say independently. I have yet to see an article on either website that isn't intentionally misleading or downright lying. I invite you to prove me wrong.

No way. I avoid BB like the plague. I swear it gives you cancer. As for junk science, I've never heard of them till today, but I get the feeling they'd like to see the EPA abolished and let polluting industries go on the Honor System. Fancy lads, all.

Generally speaking, it sounds like the EPA disclosed all forseeable risks in these studies but could have done a better in following timelines for reporting and for declaring followup responsibilities in consent forms.

I think some people feel like the EPA should have discussed death by cancer as a disclosed risk, whereas EPA feels that 2 hours of exposure to diesel exhaust carries to excess cancer risk.

Unrelated, but that farking scene almost killed me from laughing. The entirety of the last 6 years of politics as summed up by Kathy Bates playing a character dug up out of pre-Civil War watching Taft's inauguration.

Generally speaking, it sounds like the EPA disclosed all forseeable risks in these studies but could have done a better in following timelines for reporting and for declaring followup responsibilities in consent forms.

I think some people feel like the EPA should have discussed death by cancer as a disclosed risk, whereas EPA feels that 2 hours of exposure to diesel exhaust carries tno excess cancer risk.

About the founder of junkscience.com, whence this information comes to light: "Mr. Milloy is a biostatistician and securities lawyer who has also been a registered securities principal, investment fund manager, non-profit executive, and a print/web columnist on science and business issues. "

Lucky LaRue:I understand that a narrow, insipid view of how the world works may be all that you can comprehend, so I don't take it as a personal insult that my more complex political position irritates you to the point of being rude and aggressive.

You literally could not make it 5 words into this thread without resorting to insults, and yet it's others who are rude and aggressive.....

error 303:error 303: Needlessly Complicated: Is ANY of that even true?

They could have at least linked to EPA report on this.

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140331-14-P-0154.pdf

Generally speaking, it sounds like the EPA disclosed all forseeable risks in these studies but could have done a better in following timelines for reporting and for declaring followup responsibilities in consent forms.

I think some people feel like the EPA should have discussed death by cancer as a disclosed risk, whereas EPA feels that 2 hours of exposure to diesel exhaust carries tno excess cancer risk.

Ah. And the Scribd link actually was the EPA report. I'm failing at this.

I don't understand where they came to the conclusion that EPA is trying to lie to old people to kill them. The report more or less says the opposite of that.

udhq:Lucky LaRue: I understand that a narrow, insipid view of how the world works may be all that you can comprehend, so I don't take it as a personal insult that my more complex political position irritates you to the point of being rude and aggressive.

You literally could not make it 5 words into this thread without resorting to insults, and yet it's others who are rude and aggressive.....

If you would articulate just one salient point or position, it would make all your other passive-aggressive swagger more bearable.

RyogaM: So, in the interest of finding common-ground, we all agree: the EPA was stupid to do these experiments in the manner they did, and, industries who wish to continue to pollute should be heavily regulated by the EPA or it's equivalent so that they don't expose people to the exact same pollutants used in these experiments during the normal course of their business. And that anyone who thinks that closing the EPA over these experiments, as many of the commenters on that article appear to be doing, are fancy lads.

Satan's Bunny Slippers:RyogaM: So, in the interest of finding common-ground, we all agree: the EPA was stupid to do these experiments in the manner they did, and, industries who wish to continue to pollute should be heavily regulated by the EPA or it's equivalent so that they don't expose people to the exact same pollutants used in these experiments during the normal course of their business. And that anyone who thinks that closing the EPA over these experiments, as many of the commenters on that article appear to be doing, are fancy lads.

QFT

Dude, when will you realize, its OK for their side to do it, but when you Liberals even dare to commence operations on things they think they have a monopoly on, thats when the trouble starts.

Said the guy whose posts represent more than 1 in every 8 in the thread and has yet to actually say anything.

Ignoring what I say just because it hurts your feelings and hits too close to home is *exactly* how to go about keeping your head firmly in your echo chamber. Don't worry, though, I am sure Rachel Maddow will tell you what to think soon enough.

Satan's Bunny Slippers:RyogaM: So, in the interest of finding common-ground, we all agree: the EPA was stupid to do these experiments in the manner they did, and, industries who wish to continue to pollute should be heavily regulated by the EPA or it's equivalent so that they don't expose people to the exact same pollutants used in these experiments during the normal course of their business. And that anyone who thinks that closing the EPA over these experiments, as many of the commenters on that article appear to be doing, are fancy lads.

I know that when I want honest reporting of scientific facts, I go to the website that give James O'Keefe his fifteen minutes of fame and considers evolution to be scientifically disproven by the Bible, and that in this case is only repeating something that even they consider to be a source of junk.

Lucky LaRue:Ignoring what I say just because it hurts your feelings and hits too close to home is *exactly* how to go about keeping your head firmly in your echo chamber. Don't worry, though, I am sure Rachel Maddow will tell you what to think soon enough.

This "echo chamber" apparently thinks that the EPA was stupid to allow the experiments be done in the manner they were done, and that anyone who thinks these actions should be used as a reason to close or hinder the EPA is an idiot. What part of this "echo chamber" wisdom do you disagree with?

DarwiOdrade:Lucky LaRue: I like how the herbal teabaggers are completely ignoring the fact that the EPA didn't provide full disclosure and focusing on a Breitbart beat-down. That's why I like you guys - your truly the intellectual elite.

OK - let's talk about pollutants and full disclosure. I'll go first:Fracking companies won the right to keep secret the chemical cocktails they pump underground during shale gas drilling in North Carolina under a chemical disclosure rule approved Tuesday by the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission.

cman:Satan's Bunny Slippers: RyogaM: So, in the interest of finding common-ground, we all agree: the EPA was stupid to do these experiments in the manner they did, and, industries who wish to continue to pollute should be heavily regulated by the EPA or it's equivalent so that they don't expose people to the exact same pollutants used in these experiments during the normal course of their business. And that anyone who thinks that closing the EPA over these experiments, as many of the commenters on that article appear to be doing, are fancy lads.

QFT

Dude, when will you realize, its OK for their side to do it, but when you Liberals even dare to commence operations on things they think they have a monopoly on, thats when the trouble starts.

error 303:error 303: error 303: Needlessly Complicated: Is ANY of that even true?

They could have at least linked to EPA report on this.

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140331-14-P-0154.pdf

Generally speaking, it sounds like the EPA disclosed all forseeable risks in these studies but could have done a better in following timelines for reporting and for declaring followup responsibilities in consent forms.

I think some people feel like the EPA should have discussed death by cancer as a disclosed risk, whereas EPA feels that 2 hours of exposure to diesel exhaust carries tno excess cancer risk.

Ah. And the Scribd link actually was the EPA report. I'm failing at this.

I don't understand where they came to the conclusion that EPA is trying to lie to old people to kill them. The report more or less says the opposite of that.

Pretty much what I suspected. Breathless exaggeration about not following protocols for human experiments when the opposite is true. Nothing to see here. And no one holding deadbart.com to account for telling outright lies. Typical.

udhq:Lucky LaRue: udhq: Lucky LaRue: If you would articulate just one salient point or position, it would make all your other passive-aggressive swagger more bearable.

You need to look up what unfamiliar words mean before you use them.

I don't see how it's going to help you if I look up words that you don't understand.

Ahhh, I see we've come to a "chess with a pigeon" stage of this conversation. No matter which direction it goes, you win, because you really enjoy the attention.

Have fun with that.

Hey, if the conversation is too complicated, it's no shame to walk away from it. But there's no need to sulk in a corner - there are plenty of people in this thread whose ideas are Herbal Teabagger approved, and you can happily agree with each other's talking points all day, if that's what floats your boat.

He keeps pushing both sides are bad while constantly only going after anything remotely not GOP.

A cliched Fark Independent.

I hold that both the far left and far right are bad. That is correct. Whether you are a teabagger or a herbal tebagger, you are equally bad

That's why people don't believe you.

Oh, and add the requisite xkcd cartoon reference for good measure.

Are you suggesting that the radical left doesn't like to have it pointed out that their behavior and political tactics are in line with their conservative counterparts? You are saying that makes them angry and less likely to agree with me?

Lucky LaRue:Hey, if the conversation is too complicated, it's no shame to walk away from it. But there's no need to sulk in a corner - there are plenty of people in this thread whose ideas are Herbal Teabagger approved, and you can happily agree with each other's talking points all day, if that's what floats your boat.

Is the idea that the EPA was stupid to allow the experiments be done in the manner they were reportedly done, and that anyone who thinks these actions should be used as a reason to close or hinder the EPA is an idiot an Herbal Teabagger approved idea? What part of this "Herbal Teabagger Approved " wisdom do you disagree with?

Hmmmmm.... mid 2000's, lets see ... who would have been more than happy to approve of or appoint someone to conduct such a harmful study, i bet it would have to be someone that was fine with torture for sure.

Lucky LaRue:udhq: Lucky LaRue: udhq: Lucky LaRue: If you would articulate just one salient point or position, it would make all your other passive-aggressive swagger more bearable.

You need to look up what unfamiliar words mean before you use them.

I don't see how it's going to help you if I look up words that you don't understand.

Ahhh, I see we've come to a "chess with a pigeon" stage of this conversation. No matter which direction it goes, you win, because you really enjoy the attention.

Have fun with that.

Hey, if the conversation is too complicated, it's no shame to walk away from it. But there's no need to sulk in a corner - there are plenty of people in this thread whose ideas are Herbal Teabagger approved, and you can happily agree with each other's talking points all day, if that's what floats your boat.

Next, do the one where you complain about other people using ad hominems. That's always good for a laugh.

He keeps pushing both sides are bad while constantly only going after anything remotely not GOP.

A cliched Fark Independent.

I hold that both the far left and far right are bad. That is correct. Whether you are a teabagger or a herbal tebagger, you are equally bad

That's why people don't believe you.

Oh, and add the requisite xkcd cartoon reference for good measure.

Are you suggesting that the radical left doesn't like to have it pointed out that their behavior and political tactics are in line with their conservative counterparts? You are saying that makes them angry and less likely to agree with me?

Generally speaking, it sounds like the EPA disclosed all forseeable risks in these studies but could have done a better in following timelines for reporting and for declaring followup responsibilities in consent forms.

I think some people feel like the EPA should have discussed death by cancer as a disclosed risk, whereas EPA feels that 2 hours of exposure to diesel exhaust carries tno excess cancer risk.

Ah. And the Scribd link actually was the EPA report. I'm failing at this.

I don't understand where they came to the conclusion that EPA is trying to lie to old people to kill them. The report more or less says the opposite of that.

Pretty much what I suspected. Breathless exaggeration about not following protocols for human experiments when the opposite is true. Nothing to see here. And no one holding deadbart.com to account for telling outright lies. Typical.

Lucky LaRue:udhq: Lucky LaRue: udhq: Lucky LaRue: If you would articulate just one salient point or position, it would make all your other passive-aggressive swagger more bearable.

You need to look up what unfamiliar words mean before you use them.

I don't see how it's going to help you if I look up words that you don't understand.

Ahhh, I see we've come to a "chess with a pigeon" stage of this conversation. No matter which direction it goes, you win, because you really enjoy the attention.

Have fun with that.

Hey, if the conversation is too complicated, it's no shame to walk away from it. But there's no need to sulk in a corner - there are plenty of people in this thread whose ideas are Herbal Teabagger approved, and you can happily agree with each other's talking points all day, if that's what floats your boat.